Hi Chuck,My reply:
Thank you for writing with additional comments. I suspect you and I will never see exactly eye to eye on gun issues, but that being said, I also don't consider myself an anti-gun person. I believe the 2nd Amendment protects a personal right to bear arms for self-protection, hunting/sport, etc., but I also believe in reasonable regulation of weapons given that we live in a much more densely populated and urban society than when the constitution was adopted, and the sort of guns available today are different from those envisioned by the founders. One point of disagreement we probably have is that I believe we have the authority to ban guns in city buildings if we choose to. Concealed carry has not been allowed in city buildings to date under state law, and the state has now given us the option to keep it that way even though they legalized concealed carry generally. I'm not aware of any successful constitutional challenges, either state or federally, to either the previous ban on concealed carry or the allowance in the new law for municipalities to maintain that ban in their buildings. So I'm entering this topic assuming we have the authority to pass the proposed ordinance if we want to.
That said, I think there are at least some reasonable modifications that could be made to the proposed ordinance if it does pass, and I want to address those rather than reflexively passing something because of any irrational fear of concealed carry. I think your point about park bathrooms is well taken. I'm also open to at least allowing employees to carry, and possibly also people serving on official city committees.
My concerns about concealed carry by the public generally in city buildings are three:1.) Law abiding citizens can become passionate or even angry in the moment, while dealing with city employees on issues of fines or bills or denial of permits, or with Council members or committee members after an unfavorable vote on some issue. I'm not sure that easy access to a loaded weapon is a good thing when tempers run hot, even for people who are normally reasonable and law-abiding.2.) In the event of an incident, I am concerned that if citizens respond with guns, they could cause more harm than good, though well-intentioned, either by escalating a bad situation, aiming poorly, bringing accidental harm to themselves, or causing confusion about who is the good guy and who is the bad guy when the police do arrive. I see the need to take this risk when someone is walking down a dark street at night, but less so in broad daylight when someone is walking into City Hall or another office building.
3.) I am deeply concerned about the lack of training requirement for a concealed carry permit. I understand the state is eliminating even the 4 hour requirement. I would ask you lobby your state legislators to reinstate even that minimal requirement. Police go through countless hours of training with a gun. Some citizens have that training through the military, former police work, or personal interest, but many don't. I'd be more comfortable with concealed carry if it was accompanied by basic training requirements, and I don't think the pro-gun lobby does itself any favors at the local level by encouraging the state to remove those requirements.
I'm happy to look over any information you have to allay my concerns, I am working on amendments to improve some of the issues you mention, and I remain open minded on the rest of the ordinance, though leaning toward supporting at least some restrictions. Thank you again for writing with your concerns.
Sincerely,
Mark Spreitzer
Hi, Mark,It's refreshing to hear from a public official who is willing to discuss issues like this.
Thanks for the reply. I appreciate the chance for an honest dialog between us. So far, yours is the first reply I have received.
To address your points:
First, Wisconsin law does indeed give the City of Beloit the power to ban carry on city property. That's not in question. I am asking if it's a good idea to make a practice of disarming that portion of the populace who obey laws, without ensuring that those who do not cannot simply flout the law. This entails all those security measures that have made air travel in America just a bit more appealing than starting a prison sentence.
There have been few cases heard by the Supreme Court on Second Amendment issues, and these have tended to include, to me, spurious opinions on how much infringement on that right is legal. I am confident that in the future, this issue will be addressed and settled, but we live with what we have. There is a pending federal case to decide if Illinois' carry ban is Constitutional.
On the issue of banning guns on private property, this is definitely a right of private persons and organizations. Anyone has the right to dictate who enters their property, and how they behave while there. Having that right does not make it a good idea to exercise it, in my opinion.
When it comes to public property, however, the rules should be different. The City of Beloit is not a private corporation, owned by stockholders. It's a public entity, there for the benefit of all the people. The city should take into account the rights and needs of all those persons, not simply rely on what the law allows.
I am happy to hear that you have considered the bathroom issue. The Village of West Baraboo has become something of a national embarrassment due to the hoplophobic head of their parks department banning guns in washrooms. I would hate to see Beloit follow.
The issue with anyone carrying a gun is that the person carrying must be aware of his or her responsibility, and also be held accountable for their actions. The gun itself is not a problem - I have a couple of loaded guns within a foot of me at the moment, and in the past six years I have lived here, they have never caused any problems. It is only when a human being picks up a gun and uses it irresponsibly that it becomes a problem.
It might help to think of a gun as a safety device, like a fire extinguisher or one of those special knives sold to cut seat belts in an emergency. Either item can be misused and cause problems, but both save more lives than they take. Banning guns, to me, is the same as banning fire extinguishers because someone might use one to injure others.
To address your specific issues:
First, people can and do get angry and emotional. I would refer you to the statistics gathered in the past years since Suzanna Hupp brought the issue of concealed carry to the spotlight in Texas - a vanishingly small number of persons who receive CCW permits ever commit crimes with their weapons.
A completely anecdotal personal observation - in Illinois, where I lived until 2004, one who holds a Firearms Owner's Identification (FOID) card may carry an encased, unloaded firearm anywhere except courthouses and federal buildings, such as post offices. As a gun-rights activist, I and many other Illinoisans carried an unloaded handgun in a fanny pack for many years. I noticed that my normal inclination to get irritated in rush-hour traffic seemed to lessen when I was carrying. I have heard similar observations from people who have CCW licenses in other states, and carry loaded guns as a regular habit. Just knowing you have the power to defend yourself somehow makes a person calmer. I won't claim this is universal, but that's my experience.
I would opine that the kind of person who would pull a gun in a tense situation where his life or the lives of others was not in danger is also the kind of person who would not pass a CCW background check due to previous brushes with the law, and also, would likely ignore the ban - hence my mention of security measures. Without those measures, all a ban does is render everyone in the building defenseless, and place unreasonable burdens on the law-abiding.
As far as I know, tempers can run hot in a police department briefing room from time to time, and I have never heard of a police department that required officers to disarm before attending the morning session. My father was an officer in the Chicago Police Department, and despite having a loaded gun on hand at all times, never gave me any indication that he would pull it in a moment of anger.
Your second issue is well-put, and is a current point of discussion among Second Amendment email lists. The chances of a hostage situation are remote, but they happen. The question is - do you want to ensure that an unbalanced person with a weapon has an assured open field of fire and a wide selection of defenseless victims, as was the case at most of the widely publicized school and college shootings in the recent past, or will you allow those people to have the possibility that one of them just might be armed and could maybe prevent a deadly incident, or stop a shooter after one or two shots?
I call your attention to the school shooting in Pearl, MS, where assistant principal Joel Myrick was able to subdue and contain the shooter, after retrieving his gun from his car. Who knows if the outcome would have been different if Myrick had been carrying his weapon in the school?
At the Appalachian School of Law, a similar scenario unfolded. A shooter entered the gun-free school, killed his victims, and was stopped by students who had retrieved their weapons from their vehicles.
The issue, again, is: do you want to ensure an area where only the bad guys will be armed? If someone attempts to stop a shooter and wounds or kills an innocent, that is a tragedy, and the shooter must accept the responsibility for his actions. The same is true of a police officer who shoots at a suspect. There are many cases where innocents have been injured or killed by fire from police weapons. To be precise, statistics show that the chances of being injured or killed by gunfire from law enforcement is much higher than the chance of injury from a CCW holder.
As a federally licensed firearms dealer and a lifelong "gun nut", I share your concern about training, but temper my concern with the knowledge that people who really care about being responsible will seek training and learn on their own, while criminals simply will obtain a gun and worry about the consequences after they are arrested. For the government to require a permit in the first place offends the spirit of the Second Amendment, but the law is what it is, and we have to live with it.
Personally, I have many years experience target shooting, and have taught my children gun safety from an early age. Even so, I took the NRA Pistol certification course a few years ago, in preparation for obtaining a CCW license from Florida, and currently have signed up for an eight-hour Wisconsin CCW course, which I intend to attend even though I was able to apply for a Wisconsin permit with just the NRA certificate. I believe that you need to know how to use any tool properly and safely.
The truth is that the average CCW holder spends quite a bit of time at the range compared to the average police officer. Many cops carry a gun because they are required to, and view target practice as a necessary evil. The average citizen who goes to the trouble of obtaining a permit is already proficient with his weapon long before getting the card, and views target practice as recreation, not an onerous duty.
I notice you did not address the issue of carry on Beloit buses. I hope that the City of Beloit acts to ensure the right of self-defense extends to those who must use public transit.
I hope I have persuaded you to my point of view. If you are ever interested in shooting, let me know - I have a nice range with a berm back on my property, and enjoy helping people learn to shoot and become comfortable and safe with firearms.
Regards,
Chuck Kuecker
A World War II soldier from South Carolina got a bracelet back that he lost in Italy during the war 66 years ago. 
